Main menu

Book vs. Film: Apt Pupil

Book vs. Film: Apt Pupil

People are just people, like you. I think about this phrase often on the days when I work downtown in a small used bookstore. Some people are really just folks, reading their Ludlum's and Sheldon's, and are harmless. There are people who read narrischkeit like Eat, Pray, Love, profess it to be feminist literature of highest idiom and insist, upon every visit, that you read it already (no. NO.) People who read Clive Barker still exist, surprisingly, and I find they are some of the most identifiable readers; not by dress or manner, but by the weather that hangs around them. It's an intense atmosphere and not completely dissimilar from Pigpen. Our collection of history books, specifically WWII, is hundreds of books deep, regularly populated and picked through, and this is where I say: people are just people. They shouldn't make you nervous. Consider, readers, regular customers of WWII and Nazi Germany. "Anything specifically Holocaust related. That's the good stuff" was a reply given to my question about why history?, delivered dryly and without irony. They come in regularly for the good stuff. People. William Gass said that history likes both size and winning, and at first I thought maybe that was the draw. Is it informative? Is it comforting to know the ending? A release? Escape?

In the case of Todd Bowden, it lit him like a match.

Apt Pupil is a story about the capacity for evil and the will to do it. Todd, the eponymous apt pupil, stalks a Nazi war criminal in hiding, Kurt Dussander, and then one day shows up on his doorstep to blackmail Dussander into telling him that nasty, that gooshy stuff of the war that you won't find in a book. Todd declares this his GREAT INTEREST. His coup de foudre. You've been warned.

The plot of the book and film are plenty similar until the ending. There are two differences I feel compelled to mention. The first: the timeline is much longer. Four years--especially teenaged years--is a sizable, office-term period of time. The single year of the film, while easier to follow I suppose and certainly compact, is comparatively anemic. Secondly, the characters: this deserves a dive. Allow me to elaborate. A lot of the differences in the film one feels safe in assuming that they are a result of those two key things, but this is a story about people, who are just people (like you!). Character changes change the coin of the story, then.

Let's discuss Dussander first. He is rotely evil (Nazi! fun with synonyms! easy!), malicious, yet in both the film and book he manages to evoke sympathetic responses from an audience that is mortified to confess it. Some of the reluctant sympathy can be attributed to being sidled narratively alongside someone as hell-bound as Todd. Todd is unexplainable, but one may begin to rationalize the complexity of Dussander. Stockholm syndrome, post-traumatic stress disorder, etc. A significant change between novella and film is Dussander's appearance and the condition of his accoutrement; he is a person rotting alive in the novel. He reeks, his toothpick threadbare house reeks, the bourbon he drinks out of cartoon'd jelly jars: reeks. He says and does dreadfully disgusting old man things, but he also does a might more things sinister and terrible. I'm going to tell you: that's not his first hobo murder rodeo. It's important to note this, and that Dussander had buried five other bodies in his basement prior to the one he was burying when he had a heart attack (in the film, he doesn't actually kill the guy; Todd does. Another example of a small but major change that impacts the opinion of Dussander. I digress) and it smelled like dang dead bodies in that house. There was no way he was gonna get out of that one; he was going to get caught, eventually. But the reader is aware that he is capable of murder beyond his time with the SS, and not just botching it, and that he does so as climatic stress-relief.

And I want you to know that he kills that cat, actually, and a number of others on the regular before moving on to the homeless. That small scene in the book was so traumatic for me, so upsetting, that upon watching I was simultaneously relieved that it wasn't as graphic (or, pointedly, that it was unsuccessful) as the scene in the book, and disappointed that it didn't go there because he is that terrible.

But he is a little delightful, I'm ashamed to admit, in the film. In my defense, I offer two words: Ian McKellan. It is math, it is logic--it just happens!--like magic.

Some of it could be the changes: film Dussander is sharply dressed, clean, polite. He has teeth. I found myself loving the interactions between Todd and Dussander because this Dussander, the more palatable Dussander, is still a hell of a snake and seems to rather enjoy rushing his rat. This is more readable on film (blessed McKellan eye-work), and so this change is both understandable and enjoyable, even. When he hisses in his snakiest tongue about the blackmail insurance letter he wrote, looped on his lowest branch and reaching blithely into Todd's personal space to stress and disorient him, one squirms. He is a much more effective bully, but this also has something to do with film Todd being a little milchig brute who needs the steady hollered outta his feet.

That ain't the Todd Bowden of the novella. Not this Brad Renfro, with his staring--just that, staring. He does not manage a glare, but squints and stares blankly with a grimace of seeming constipation. Otherwise, a diligent enough actor--and dumb even-for-the-nineties haircut; he certainly seems troubled, doesn't he? And sexually crippled, the bane of the simplistic existence of a male teenager, I'd assume. He is impotent in the film, but is it not frightening to learn in the book that he has sex a handful of times and reaches sexual climax, to much fanfare and exquisite joy, by imagining that he is sadistically torturing his lover? As a woman: ay, yes. I'd like it to be noted that my opinion would, if it were absolutely unavoidable, be for the former sexually unfortunate encounter, thank you.

Until he kills Dussander's Mr. Economical (ten clams? get it together, girl!) in the basement, though, he's mostly just a creep. And there are a lot of small choices on the part of the film that seem purposeful in making Todd seem more like a rageful, impulsive teenager capable of cruelty but possessing batteries gone a shineless against the guarantee (he trips himself up, but nothing human skins when he falls)--his single murder is a good example of this. I understand wanting to tone down the more violent aspects, but in respect to this particular story: no sir. Knowing that he's already killed a number of people by this time (also important to note they are all derelicts, or, as King chooses, "stewbums") really clarifies the situation at hand and Todd's character at once. It also explains why film Todd returns to bury ol' $10 in the basement after returning from the hospital, whereas book Todd cleans up the situation immediately, professionally, accompanied by a litany of profanity and threat for Dussander. Todd is a criminal. And he cleans up the crime scene first because that is what must be done. You need to call the wolf, eh, Dussander?

But, either way: we get the idea. He's a psychotic asshole. The ending for this story is where things really deviate, and it's also where I think it cinches the win for the book (in this case I am considering everything from the schlimazel in the basement and Dussander's heart attack on to be "the ending").

It is important to the story that we know that Todd's a proficient murderer prior to Dussander's heart attack and he manages a number more before he is ostensibly killed (if not, jailed. King just says "they took him down"; I feel safe in assuming he is worm-meat) and gets what he has coming. When Ed French confronts him, he invites him to join "the fucking kraut in hell" and shoots him dead. He then goes to a place he often visited with his .30-.30 in the novella and fantasized about: a spot perfectly positioned above the highway, where he can pick off drivers and passengers at will. This time, though, his gun is loaded. Is this the real life? Or is it just fantasy?

This is narratively perfect to parri passu Dussander's suicide, which is slightly--but importantly--different between the book and film. It is worth mentioning, first, that his "discovery" by his roommate in the hospital is rather different between the two, but this I leave to you, reader, as I find that it is powerful regardless of the medium. But back to Dussander and his shuffle off the mortal coil; in the film, he blows air into his I.V. and has another heart attack, but this one is fatal. Book: he steals a number of Seconal from a supply closet and methodically takes them, smartly, like someone who had thought of this thing in their freetime, just in case. Three, and then three more, and then he waits until he is just drifting off to take a lethal amount. In his rapid slide from sedation into unconsciousness, the idea occurs to him that instead of blissful rest, the terrible dreams that plagued him (and poignantly, Todd) throughout the novella, the nightmares that only ceased once he loosed the pressure of the evil inside him and came back with a murder, await. And they won't ever be placated or escaped. It is too late.

They both do what they do in the end to escape responsibility, consequences. It surely says something that Dussander, in both film and book, chooses a cowardly death (I do not understand the legend of urb method of air embolism, but it is truly pathetic) while Todd is cruelly actionable. I suppose, really, when into the grit of things, that threatening to lie about being methodically molested by Ed French, guidance counselor and normal everyman, is not really so pale a shade of evil as shooting a bunch of people. Both take a hatred as intense as a thermos held hot in hell. Can you imagine? No. Don't. People are just people. I maintain, though, that this vile measure on film Todd's part is in in no way true to the character of the novella. Bryan Singer might have been going for a dark ending, one that keeps Todd alive to stomp his feet, clutch at his pearls, and petulantly threaten others in escalating spades. I suggest, reader, that he botched the intentions of the story with this ending.

So: BOOK. Novella, technically. Todd asks his failed sexual conquest, "Do you ever wonder why people do what they do?" And if you worry about that wonderment, then this story is for you. As Todd is reading/hearing the nitty gritty of the Holocaust, we are reading a serial killer's bildungsroman. It's astonishing stuff, and the story relies on the ending the novella provides to complete its story about Dussander and Todd, and it depends on the characters--as exposed in the novella--to build that dreadfully sinister dynamic. Because people are just people, like you. Recht?

Just thinking about this, and I think Apt Pupil was the very last VHS tape I ever bought. I know Fight Club and Se7en were the first DVDs I got, so it's somewhere around there.

Anyways, the movie is worth watching solely for Ian McKellan, plus I've always enjoyed Elias Koteas in anything he's done so it was kind of a treat to see him pop up in the film as the bum.
And I've always felt that Renfro did a good job as Todd.

What's always bugged me about the movie version is that it felt like it didn't have any teeth. Like Bryan Singer was pulling his punches with it. Which never made any sense to me. He was coming right off Usual Suspects, so he should have been able to pretty much do the movie he wanted to do. I mean, who knows, maybe the studio was the ones saying you could kill the bum but not the kitty cat, but it was just so needlessly watered down.

Even with all that though, like I said, it's still worth watching for McKellan. That scene were the kid makes him put on the uniform and he doesn't want to at first, but then he starts getting into it and just gives that sly evil grin to himself...Wowza! That was something!

I think that the scene with the cat was intentional in a few ways: one, American audiences (myself included. rather unfortunate, the lumping) can stand most any level of violence against humans, but animals invoke a different kind of sympathetic response. What's interesting here is that Singer had Todd kill the wounded bird in the gym--this scene is slightly different in the book, but it is present, and meant to mirror the compounding stress and propensity to utilize evil to release it, with Dussander's roasting of several strays for the same reason. Another example, in my opinion, of the slight sympathetic tinge Dussander is given in the film: so a purposeful "watering down," if you will. But he really dropped the ball on that ending. I read an article after this was published where Singer decided that King's ending was too perfect to attempt himself...I think the route he chose (molestation accusation?) was a vulgar and cheap close. YMMV.

But I, obviously, agree about all things McKellan. His nuanced scenes with Todd dialed down the hamfisted approach Renfro would rely on. And the staring.

yes, the movie adaption has been cleaned of violence. i guess the reason for this was economy. according to imdb the movie had a $14M budget and grossed somewhere around $9M. Had there been more violence it probably wouldn't have been R rated but there would have been no rating at all, which pretty much means no screens, and virtually no profit if not even loss for the studio...
also the depiction of cruelty and violence in books (it's up to the imagination and experiences of the reader) differs from that in movies (the director's imagination, at least the part of his imagination that he wants to subject others to). there are plenty of really violent and realistic movies (not action flicks) that don't get the recognition they should. i think that this movie would have had less mainstream audience had it been more explicit.
another advantage in using the audiences imagination instead of portrayed violence is the thinking process... the human brain does the best job at imagining the (subjective) worst experience, at least mine does ("what if?", "can it really be that he does...?"). that's why e.g. hitchcock movies work, there actually isn't violence in them, yet they are scary as hell. on the other hand movies like 1984 or clockwork orange display explicit violence, but the depicted violence is more or less irrelevant since the movie focuses on more subtle crimes (thought crime/thought control, plain behavioral conditioning and the works).
but i'm getting sidetracked here... back to the movie at hand:

both of them are disgusting and repulsive, yet more fascinating and even likable (bowden the nice boy from next door with his paper route, who becomes the ultimate evil (s.b.) after being exposed to dussander on his own initiative) characters than i like to admit.

i just watched the movie again a couple of hours ago with some friends of mine who had never seen it before and have never read the story. we had a little discussion afterward.... including me explaining some of the differences between the movie and what it's based on. i encouraged them to actually read the story, if they can stomach it. i'm going to read it again myself as i can't really recall all the details since it's been a couple of years since i've last read it.

i actually have stumbled upon a different seasons with "apt pupil" on the cover after i had seen the ads for the movie back in 1998 or so, and that cover made me buy and read it. i did not have the slightest idea of what was in the book, back then i didn't even know that "stand by me" was based on a king story...

concerning the ending i have a challenge for you:
1. dussander:
does it really matter how dussander commits suicide? an air embolism _will_ kill you (pretty much the same happens if one suffers from (untreated) dcs), especially if you push air into an cvc (i think that's what's portrayed in the movie and, as far as i know, it's not a pleasant death as the person is pretty much conscious and actually experiences most of the dying part). in contrast to that, his suicide in the book using narcotics is as i think too merciful. Seconal is or was used as an anesthetic, and, as you put it, he "methodically takes them, smartly...and then he waits until he is just drifting off to take a lethal amount.". as a monster who was aware of his actions (and maybe even proud of them) king should have made him suffer a conscious death (even if just to spite his captors, which would have fit his character). in allowing him to just drift away in peace king has maybe granted him a conscience after all, which in my opinion he just did not have. so this one actually goes to the movie... dussander is a monster, he probably knows it, he does kill himself to escape his captors and does suffer while killing himself, but is conscious and certain of the fact that he ultimately did escape capture. had he taken an overdose of secobarbital his life might have been saved by administering an anti-agent (at least today, i don't actually know if this was fact in the early to mid 1980s, the time period the story is set in). the fact that he actually did die makes his death too easy. to continue the spin: had his live been saved instead of him just drifting away he would have had to face justice, but that just isn't the ending king has written. on a side note: secobarbital sodium was invented and first synthesized in germany (though in 1928, well before the Nazi regime). maybe king wanted to express some kind of sarcasm as in "the murderer dies by his own tools" or something to that effect.... i don't know...
2. bowden:
"it wasn't until six hours later that they took him down." but they took him down. it ends right there in the book. that's it. i concur that "took him down" means he got killed. he shoots the teacher at point blank range, grabs as much ammo as he can, kills a bunch of people in a fashion which for him is unavoidable after his experiences (and for him at this point the killing of strangers is more or less just for fun and entertainment) until he is finally killed himself. but that ending - though it is brutal and in kings version inevitable - is just too clean. the bad guy dies.
the open ending in the movie is much more disturbing: ted becomes a ticking time bomb. a violent sociopath who enjoys torturing and eventually killing people passes as a normal boy and is let loose on society, to do pretty much whatever he wants. a menace to humanity, not just society, as he might infect others with his disease, think of other (15yr old) manipulable people without an as-of-yet defined and hardened sense for ethics, or even just regular people, who are more manipulable than they think. bowden becomes the ultimate evil, ready to do anything, and probably even to captivate others with his fascination with control and violence just like dussander did with him.

shockingly, in the real world - outside of fiction, it is a fact that sometimes no one, not even persons in their closest environment, realize that there actually are people similar to dussander or bowden, as depicted in the story/movie - total socio- or psychopaths -, they know, but just not as what they truly are.

btw: change the last word in your posting to "Richtig". though "right" does mean "Recht" in German if used as a noun, right used as an adjective - as in "am i right?" or "right?" - is to be translated as "richtig".

ps: i'm sorry if my point wasn't clear during some of the argument, i'm not a native speaker, but i'm happy to try to clear it up if you want me to...

Recent Pictures

Random Pictures

Important Disclaimer: Although this is Chuck Palahniuk’s official website, we are in essence, more an official ‘fansite.’ Chuck Palahniuk himself does not own nor run this website. Nor did he create it. It was started by Dennis Widmyer, who is the webmaster and editor of most of the content. Chuck Palahniuk himself should not be held accountable nor liable for any of the content posted on this website. The opinions expressed in the news updates, content pages and message boards are not the opinions of Chuck Palahniuk nor his publishers. If you are trying to contact Chuck Palahniuk, sending emails to this website will not get you there. You should instead, take the more professional route of contacting his publicist at Doubleday.